It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Decide a course of action as you go along, using your own initiative and perceptions rather than a pre-determined plan or mechanical aids.
This is early aviation parlance. Aircraft initially had few navigation aids and flying was accomplished by means of the pilot's judgment. The term emerged in the 1930s and was first widely used in reports of Douglas Corrigan's flight from the USA to Ireland in 1938.
That flight was reported in many US newspapers of the day, including this piece, entitled 'Corrigan Flies By The Seat Of His Pants', in The Edwardsville Intelligencer, 19th July 1938:
"Douglas Corrigan was described as an aviator 'who flies by the seat of his pants' today by a mechanic who helped him rejuvinate the plane which airport men have now nicknamed the 'Spirit of $69.90'. The old flying expression of 'flies by the seat of his trousers' was explained by Larry Conner, means going aloft without instruments, radio or other such luxuries."
Two days before this report Corrigan had submitted a flight plan to fly from Brooklyn to California. He had previously had a plan for a trans-Atlantic flight rejected (presumably on the grounds that the 'Spirit of $69.60 wasn't considered up to the job). His subsequent 29 hour flight ended in Dublin, Ireland. He claimed that his compasses had failed. He didn't openly admit it but it was widely assumed that he had ignored the rejection of his flight plan and deliberately flown east rather than west. He was thereafter known as 'Wrong Way Corrigan' and starred as himself in the 1938 movie The Flying Irishman.
The 'old flying expression' quoted above (although it can't have been very old in 1938) that refers to trousers rather than pants does suggest that the phrase was originally British and crossed the Atlantic (the right way) prior to becoming 'flies by the seat of one's pants'.
Originally posted by longjohnbritchesI have asked NASA worshipers to give Risk Assessments since I first posted here at ATS.
All I ever get is opinions and hearsay.
It is inconceivable especially do to the extreme military compliment to NASA --
to not have the exact percentages of a missions success or failure prior to lift off.
Idiotic at the least.
Originally posted by choos
reply to post by decisively
you still complaining about them not seeing stars?
remember the scanning scope is redundant it was planned as a primary use of navigation, but eventually computers from ground ended up being more efficient. the scanning scope was not vital for navigation only used as backup, if it was needed than a lot of time is required to be fully dark adapted.
sextant had no problem seeing stars.
and lastly unmanned spacecrafts?? how do they navigate??
Soviet luna program, especially luna 10 which orbitted the moon in 1966
US lunar orbiter program which took photos of 99% of the moon surface from 66-67
US surveyor probes doing soft landings on the moon from 66-68
I have asked NASA worshipers to give Risk Assessments since I first posted here at ATS.
Who cares about 15. It is Apollo 11 total risk assment before lift off.
The point is not one of seeing stars. The astronauts see stars, so what ? So what do I care ?
No Incorrect, My ArguMent Is That Alan Shepard Said He Was Not Sure When He Sighted A Star That It Was In Fact Star "so and so" , as such he was not sure about his platform alignment and so never went to the moon.